Questions and Answers - April 16

1. DAVID SHEARER
(Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime
Minister: Does he stand by all his
statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime
Minister): Yes.

David Shearer:
Why did the Prime Minister state six times in his press
conference on 24 September that he did not know of any other
unlawful action or errors made in relation to legally
questionable spying on New Zealanders, when in fact he had
been informed about that in July earlier?

Rt Hon
JOHN KEY: It was because I believed that to be
correct.

David Shearer: Why did he ask
only to be informed at that time, when he said today on
Radio New Zealand that when the illegal spying was flagged
by the Government Communications Security Bureau director in
July, he indicated to him how serious the situation
was?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It was because I
believed that to be the prudent course of
action.

David Shearer: Why did he not
instruct the Government Communications Security Bureau to
suspend all legally questionable spying on New Zealanders as
soon as he became aware of the serious problem in
July?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The very
unresolved nature of the matter, I believe, did not warrant
that action.

David Shearer: Given that it
was unresolved, did he not think that it was a more prudent
course of action to stop any illegal spying on New
Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not at that
time, because that was not established and it has not been
established, actually, at this point.

Louise
Upston: Can the Prime Minister outline to the House
the increasing threat that the National Cyber Security
Centre has reported on?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY:
Actually, I can—I can. The National Cyber Security Centre
reported in 2011 that it had 90 instances lodged with it.
These constitute serious instances that do damage or
compromise the target or company involved. In 2012, that
number increased from 90 to 134. I can inform the House
today that for this calendar year the number already stands
at 79, and we are not even at Anzac Day. We have already
passed half of last year’s total of serious cyber
instances. These attacks are steeply rising and putting at
risk our Government and private sectors’ security. The
Government Communications Security Bureau has a vital role
to play in combating this and that is why it is crucial the
legislation that I proposed yesterday is passed by this
House in good time.

David Shearer: Why
did he stop illegal spying in September when he did not feel
it was possible to stop it in July? What happened in
between?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is
technically correct to say that I did not stop it in
September. Actually, the director-general did, and he
advised me.

Louise Upston: What steps has
the National-led Government taken to strengthen New
Zealand’s response to an increasing
cyberthreat?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This
Government has taken a number of steps in relation to an
increasing cyberthreat, including creating the National
Cyber Security Centre within the Government Communications
Security Bureau. The centre has publicly reported on the
number of serious cyberthreat instances, and it plays an
important role in interacting with industry, across
Government, and internationally, to protect our
infrastructure and systems. We have also created the
National Cyber Policy Office within the Department of the
Prime Minister and Cabinet, which leads the development of
cybersecurity policy advice for Government. It also provides
advice on investing Government resources in cybersecurity
activities. We are taking the cyberthreat very seriously, as
are other Governments around the world. The reporting of
instances here is still relatively new, so it is highly
likely there is a lot more to come in this
area.

David Shearer: Why has the
amendment to the Security Intelligence Service legislation
suddenly been shelved, and will he make public the draft
legislation so that we can see what changes have been
planned for the Security Intelligence Service?

Rt
Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the last part of the
question, no.

Louise Upston: Can the
Prime Minister outline for the House the legislative
proposals for significantly strengthening the oversight of
our intelligence services?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Yes. The Government is proposing to
significantly strengthen the oversight of our intelligence
agencies and this is a very important step in rebuilding
public confidence following the Kitteridge report. Among the
changes we intend to make are the following: removing the
requirement that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and
Security be a retired High Court judge. This will increase
the pool of people who can do the job. Second, we will make
the inspector-general’s office more proactive by
increasing the requirements on the office and moving it a
step forward from the existing review-focused work. Third,
we will increase the resourcing and staffing of the
inspector-general’s office, including creating a new role
of deputy inspector-general. Fourth, legislation will
explicitly expand the inspector-general’s programme and
the office’s work will become more transparent. There are
more changes, but in the interests of time I will stop here
with what are very important and significant proposals for
change.

David Shearer: In relation to the
unanswered part of my last question, why has the amendment
to the Security Intelligence Service legislation been
shelved?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because, in my
view, the primary focus of attention should be on the
changes to the Government Communications Security Bureau law
and the increase in oversight.

David
Shearer: In light of his answer and the lack of
confidence that people have in the intelligence agencies,
why will the Prime Minister not agree to a full independent
inquiry to restore that confidence in our intelligence
agencies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I do
not believe it is necessary.

State-owned Assets,
Sales—Progress

2. TODD McCLAY
(National—Rotorua) to the Minister of
Finance: What progress is the Government making in
its share offer programme to reduce debt and free up capital
for priority spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister
of Finance): Yesterday the Mighty River Power share
offer opened to New Zealand investors. This is the first
offer in the Government’s $5 billion to $7 billion
programme. The Mighty River Power offer period is for New
Zealand retail investors only. This ensures New Zealanders
will be at the front of the queue for shares and encourages
widespread ownership so that 85 to 90 percent of Mighty
River Power shares are owned by New Zealanders.

New
Zealanders have until 3 May to apply to buy shares. Shares
are expected to be listed on the NZX on 10
May.

Todd McClay: How many New Zealanders
pre-registered for shares in Mighty River
Power?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There were
440,000 New Zealanders who pre-registered for shares in
Mighty River Power. Those who pre-registered may get an
allocation preference of up to 25 percent if the offer is
oversubscribed. We have yet to see just how many of those
who have pre-registered will actually apply for shares. New
Zealanders with applications for up to $2,000 worth of
shares are guaranteed not to be scaled back, and New
Zealanders who hold their shares continuously for 2 years
will receive a loyalty bonus.

Hon David
Parker: Why did thousands of pre-registrants for
the Mighty River Power share offer receive emails last night
with their names and reference numbers blacked out? Is it
because the Government’s track record on privacy is so bad
that it has swung too far the other way?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: I understand that the provider of the
email service detected some kind of error in the system
after the emails had gone out. That has been corrected. But
I can assure the member that that will not dampen the
enthusiasm of those 440,000 New Zealanders who have shown an
interest in Mighty River Power shares. They are making
serious decisions about their personal investments, and that
does not suit the Labour Party, which wants them
to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Todd
McClay: What are the benefits of the mixed
ownership programme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
There is a range of benefits. In fact, the benefits are
significant enough that the Opposition parties have not
promised to buy these companies back. These companies will
be subject to the disciplines of financial markets, where
they are likely, on average, to perform better than under
public ownership. Funds raised from this partial sale will
be reinvested through the Future Investment Fund. These
investments will be in infrastructure, hospitals, schools,
and the rebuild of Christchurch as part of a $19 billion
capital expenditure programme by the Government over the
next 4 years. We expect that the sale of shares will raise
$5 billion to $7 billion, or around 3 percent of the
Government’s balance sheet value. The alternative is to
borrow more on volatile world financial
markets.

Todd McClay: As part of the
Government’s wider programme to improve the electricity
sector, what progress has been made in making the market
more competitive for hard-working New
Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: When the
National Government came to office in late 2008, we
considered it was urgent to do something about the runaway
electricity price increases under the previous Government,
which had added up to a 72 percent increase, or around 8
percent compound increases, in the electricity prices under
the Labour Government. So we commissioned a technical
advisory group to review the market, and, as a result, the
Government passed the Electricity Industry Act to
re-allocate assets among the State-owned enterprises to
increase competition in wholesale and retail markets,
created the Electricity Authority and made it responsible
for promoting competition—a change from the Electricity
Commission—developed a liquid hedge market, and created
the What’s My Number campaign to promote consumer
switching. All of these actions have had some impact on the
runaway 8 percent per year price increases under the
previous Labour Government.

Prime
Minister—Compliance with Cabinet
Manual

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS
(Leader—NZ First) to the Prime
Minister: Does he believe that he has met the
requirements of the Cabinet Manual to behave in a way that
upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical
standards in his ministerial capacity, his political
capacity and his personal capacity; if so, why?

Rt
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, because I
have.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How was he
upholding the Cabinet Manual on 24 September last year
regarding the Government Communications Security Bureau when
he said “I’ve never had advice in the four years that
I’ve been minister that they’ve in any way ever acted
unlawfully …”, despite saying last week that he was told
about illegal spying in July 2012?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Because the statement I made on 24 September
was correct.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was
the Prime Minister told in July of 2012 that there had been
illegal spying—yes or no?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Not the way the member defines it,
no.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. My language has been plain and
simple and to the point. There is no way one can misconstrue
the first and the last question. How can he possibly get up
and get away with saying “Not the way the member defines
it.”? How else could I define it? I am asking him whether
he was told in July 2012 of illegal spying. How do you
define that? It is as plain as daylight.

Mr
SPEAKER: And the Prime Minister, in my mind,
addressed that question quite emphatically, saying “No,
not in the way the member is defining it.”

Rt
Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. Could I have your ruling? How would you define the
question I just asked?

Mr SPEAKER: No.
That is not a point of order now. You are now
disputing—what the member can do is continue with his
supplementary questions.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We
have limited supplementary questions in this House. That is
not a satisfactory ruling—that we can count on
supplementary questions when you know that that number is
limited.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I
will allocate an additional supplementary question to the
member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is
the difficulty with the question “Was he was told about
illegal spying in July 2012?” that he cannot
answer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have answered
it. As I have made clear publicly, what was raised in July
was a flag about the issues of the operability between the
SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau
legislation. I was advised that there was legal work that
had to be done and was ongoing, but it was unresolved. In
fact, actually, in terms of legal opinions, it is still not
resolved today. But there was a decision reached by the
Solicitor-General in March 2013.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: Given that it took him a full week to
disclose a phone call he made to Ian Fletcher about the
Government Communications Security Bureau job, given that he
knew Mr Fletcher’s phone number, despite not having seen
him for many, many years, and given that he had dinner with
Mr Fletcher on at least two occasions—

John
Hayes: Conspiracy.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: Well, actually, a conspiracy is when two or
more—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption]
Order! If the member could just concentrate on his question
now, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well,
Mr Speaker, all I am hearing is a barrage over
here.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that
interjections are not helpful. Would the member please
continue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given
that it took him—[Interruption] Oh, you sensitive
chaps.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt
Hon Winston Peters: Given that it took him a full
week to disclose the phone call he made to Ian Fletcher
about the Government Communications Security Bureau, given
that he knew Mr Fletcher’s number, despite not having seen
him for years, and given that he had dinner with Mr Fletcher
on at least two occasions, did he make more than one phone
call to Mr Fletcher prior to his appointment to the
Government Communications Security Bureau?

Rt Hon
JOHN KEY: I did not have dinner with Ian Fletcher
on two occasions.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: My question asked whether he made more than
one phone call to Mr Fletcher—

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty was that there was
quite a lot else added to the question, but if the Prime
Minister could please address the last part of the question,
which was whether he made more than one phone call, that
would help the order of the House.

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: I do not have that information with me. If the
member wants to put it down in writing, I am happy to get it
for him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, what is the use of
question time when the Prime Minister can give that sort of
answer? He was asked whether he made more than one phone
call prior to the appointment, and he cannot
remember.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister
answered that he did not have that information with him.
That is a perfectly satisfactory answer to that question.
Does the member wish to ask his additional supplementary
question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How was
he upholding the Cabinet Manual when he told the House that
the first he knew of the Government Communications Security
Bureau spying on Kim Dotcom was 17 September 2012, when in
fact he had been told on 29 February 2012 and made a quip to
staff about it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refute
the premise that the member is basing that question
on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary
question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No.
Order! The member has now used not only his entitlement but
also the additional supplementary question.

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: No, I have got five.

Mr
SPEAKER: No, he has four today and I have given you
one extra. That comes to five, and you have used five
supplementary questions. Question No. 4, the Hon Phil
Heatley.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. By my calculation—and your
clerk can tell me whether it is right or wrong—having
given me one extra, and I had only four written down here,
that makes five. I have not got to ask the fourth one
yet.

Mr SPEAKER: My clerk is on the
phone. He has said you had had four questions, I gave you
another one, which came to five, and you have asked five in
total. [Interruption] He has asked five questions. We are
moving on to question No.
4.

Beneficiaries—Statistics

4.
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the
Minister for Social Development: What
reports has she received on the latest benefit
figures?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social
Development): The latest benefit numbers show that
there are around 29,000 fewer New Zealanders receiving
benefits than in the last quarter. This is the lowest that
benefit numbers have been at this time of the year since
2009. As at the end of the March quarter there were 310,146
people on benefits, including 92,550 sole parents on the
DPB, just over 58,000 on sickness benefits, and 48,756 on
unemployment benefits.

Hon Phil Heatley:
How many people have come off benefits for work, and what
difference will this make?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: In the last quarter more than 17,600
people went off work-tested benefits—the unemployment
benefit, the DPB, and sickness benefits—and got into work.
What we also saw, as is usual in the month of March, was a
lot going back into training and into study. But we know
that getting people off welfare and into work means greater
opportunities for them. This is making a difference to New
Zealanders’ lives.

Hon Phil Heatley:
What trends has she seen in the number of people receiving
sickness and invalids’ benefits?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: From December 1999 to November 2008 the
sickness benefit numbers grew by 50 percent and numbers for
the invalid’s benefit grew by 60 percent. When I first
came in as Minister, I was told that this was the track
these benefits were on and to just accept it. Quite frankly,
this National Government was not prepared to. Despite the
toughest global economic recession, the growth of sickness
benefit numbers has been just 14 percent and has been
tracking down over the last 12 months. Growth in the number
of invalid’s benefits has, actually, stayed the same and
has not increased.

Exchange Rate—Effect on
Export and Import Substitution Jobs

5.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister
of Finance: Will the recent rise in the New Zealand
dollar to a post-float high on the Trade Weighted Index
cause job losses among nonprimary exporters and import
substitution businesses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH
(Minister of Finance): It is too simplistic to
conclude that, although of course it is possible. Jobs come
and go for all sorts of reasons including winning or losing
customers, the success or failure of competitors, and
changes in market prices, which can, of course, be
influenced by the exchange rate. A high exchange rate does
make it more difficult for exporters to be profitable, but
it is clear that over the past 6 years or 7 years, despite a
rising and high exchange rate, many New Zealand exporters
have remained or became profitable, and are growing. This is
demonstrated in, for instance, the Performance of
Manufacturing Index for the manufacturing sector, which has
shown that since 2009 most of the time the manufacturing
sector has been growing. More recent statistics suggest that
our firms are fairly resilient. New job listings on
seek.co.nz are up 4.9 percent compared with March last year,
and TradeMe reports job vacancies in the first quarter were
up 5 percent on a year ago.

Hon David
Parker: Does he agree with the IMF and the Governor
of the Reserve Bank that the New Zealand dollar is
overvalued and hindering the rebalancing of the New Zealand
economy; if so, what measures will he take to reduce the
level and volatility of the New Zealand
dollar?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I do tend
to agree with the Reserve Bank and the IMF on this matter,
and I also agree with both of them that there is no easy or
obvious fix to a relatively high exchange rate. That high
exchange rate is driven by the relative health of the New
Zealand economy compared with other developed economies. I
would expect the exchange rate is likely to come down when
other economies stop printing money and their interest rates
start rising. In the meantime, we are focusing on what we
can control, which is the competitiveness of the New Zealand
economy, and our 300 initiatives in that respect are set out
in the Business Growth Agenda.

Hon David
Parker: Given that exports have barely moved as a
percentage of GDP in the period since he was appointed, how
will his goal of exports at 40 percent of GDP be achieved
under what he himself has called the highest rolling average
exchange rate since World War II?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: Well, under the circumstances, we actually
have not done too badly. I agree that the high exchange rate
is a headwind to a rebalancing of the economy. The other
significant headwind is going to be the rebuild of
Christchurch, where very substantial resources that may have
been invested in the externally focused sectors are going to
be invested in rebuilding Christchurch, but that is
something that we have to do. In the long run, our focus on
getting the Government’s books under control, improving
the efficiency of the 30 percent of the economy the
Government controls, and focussing that on the
competitiveness of our businesses, compared with offshore,
including Australia, is going to lead to an improvement in
our export performance.

Paul Goldsmith:
What reports has he received showing that businesses are
becoming more confident and investing for growth, despite
the headwinds caused by the high New Zealand
dollar?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a
number of such reports that show the resilience of New
Zealand businesses, which recognise that an increase in the
exchange rate is effectively an increase in the living
standards of most New Zealanders. Those reports include the
New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s quarterly
survey of business opinion, which shows business optimism at
the

highest level since March 2010; the latest monthly
economic indicators show that the outlook for the economy is
looking more positive; and the BNZ - Business New Zealand
performance of manufacturing index remained positive in
March and just off a 12-month high. Of course, if the
exchange rate remained elevated levels of 86c or 87c against
the US dollar, that would be a very significant challenge
for New Zealand businesses.

Hon David
Parker: Given that just last week he said that the
two biggest hindrances to export growth are the Canterbury
earthquakes and the exchange rate, should he not abandon the
primacy given to inflation targeting over other aspects,
like the exchange rate, and do something to address the
exchange rate in order to increase exports?

Hon
BILL ENGLISH: Well, I would certainly stand by
those comments. If the member means are we going to go
printing money, the answer is no, because in the long run
that will drive down the living standards of all New
Zealanders. Bear in mind, a rising exchange rate means that
New Zealanders can buy more with their Kiwi dollar than
ever, including petrol and including food. I do not know
what the Labour Party has got against rising living
standards for New Zealanders.

Hon David
Parker: Why is he steadfastly sticking to a
monetary policy regime that was devised before the fall of
the Berlin Wall when so many other countries have moved on
and are driving the New Zealand dollar to heights that close
down New Zealand businesses and jobs?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: The Labour Party needs to make sure it is
not led by the nose by the Greens—as it is on its
electricity policies, as we will find out on Thursday—on
this matter of the exchange rate. The member is fooling
himself if he believes that there is some easy way of a
small, open economy picking its exchange rate. You just
cannot do it in a way that maintains a sensible economy
without massive risk to taxpayers. The member has flown
around the world talking to all sorts of experts, but
actually conventional monetary policy is the most
appropriate for the New Zealand economy as it is, and with
growth between 2 to 3 percent we are in much better shape
than a whole lot of other economies.

Public
Transport, Auckland—City Rail Link

6.
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister
of Finance: Does he have a plan to fund the
Auckland City rail link in the upcoming Budget given that
public backing for the rail project is more than twice as
strong as the Government’s proposed new motorway north
from Puhoi?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): I am advised that the Pūhoi to Wellsford
road has considerable backing, particularly in Northland and
the North Auckland region. I am further advised that the
road has a cost-benefit ratio that is higher than the rail
loop, both with and without consideration of wider economic
benefits. Discussions with the Auckland Council on transport
options are continuing. Of course, the Government must be
satisfied that any investment represents value for
taxpayers’ money, and, as for financing plans, the member
will just have to wait for the Budget on 16
May.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to
table the business cases for the Auckland City rail link and
for Pūhoi to Wellsford, which show that—

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! Are they publicly available or
easily available to members? [Interruption] They
are.

Julie Anne Genter: If his goal is to
achieve value for money for the taxpayer, why is he
prioritising $2 billion on duplicating a motorway that
carries fewer than 20,000 vehicles per day instead of
unlocking Auckland’s rail network with the city rail link,
which will take tens of thousands of cars off the road at
peak time?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: These
decisions are all made in the context of the documents the
Government publishes about its plan for roading over the
next 4 or 5 years, so the member is free to go and look at
how that is explained and put together. In respect of these
particular projects, the Pūhoi to Wellsford project has a
reasonable cost-benefit ratio. One would also take into
consideration an issue commonly raised by Opposition
parties, and that is the economic deprivation

of the far
north. It has a strong view that better infrastructure will,
in the long run, help economic development and therefore
provide jobs for people in the far north. In respect of the
rail loop, there is ongoing discussion with the Auckland
Council, which has put its case consistently over a number
of years. On the face of it, the benefit-cost ratio for that
project is lower than for the Pūhoi to Wellsford
highway.

Julie Anne Genter: Would it not
be smarter to invest in targeted safety upgrades to the road
north of Pūhoi now and a bypass around Warkworth, which
would achieve 90 percent of the safety and economic benefits
much sooner than a new duplicate motorway, leaving $1.5
billion to invest in a project that will make a real
difference to hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders and how
they get around their city every day?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: I accept that the member is an advocate
for the central business district rail loop, but even if
there is a decision made that it is a worthwhile project,
there would then be a discussion about who should pay for
it, because, as the member has pointed out, it is something
that primarily benefits the Auckland commuters. I would also
point out to the member that it is not a trade-off between
the Pūhoi highway and the central business district rail
loop. The Government has a broad-ranging investment
programme in transport, which has included very significant
investment in the Auckland and the Wellington rail networks.
In fact, it is very significant, picking up from where the
previous Government started off. There has been very
considerable progress made with those investments, and the
Government will also weigh up any decision around the rail
loop with all the other transport projects all around the
country, many of which have better benefit-cost ratios than
this one.

Julie Anne Genter: Does he deny
that the roads of national significance have not been tested
by Treasury’s better business case guidelines and,
therefore, his Government is prioritising 85 percent of new
infrastructure spending on projects that have not been
thoroughly assessed and that were chosen before this party
came into Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
Some of the weight given to the roads of national
significance was set out in the manifesto presented by the
National Party Opposition back in 2008, and of course at
that time it did not have access to all the analytical
capacity—or, in fact, to any of the analytical
capacity—of the Public Service. But those projects have
all been thoroughly scrutinised for value for money, and any
new projects that the Government invests in, whether it is
roads, hospitals, schools, or rail, go through a very
thorough process to test them for value for
money.

Julie Anne Genter: Can I confirm
that the Minister has just said that he is prioritising
projects that have not been through Treasury’s better
business case guidelines for infrastructure development,
instead of prioritising projects that would actually make a
real difference to congestion in Auckland, the single
biggest project of which is the city rail
link?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I think
that the point here is that the reason there is a healthy
debate about the city rail link is that when you put it
through the kinds of robust guidelines that have been
developed, it shows relatively low benefits for the
investment. That is not to say that it cannot happen, but I
do not think we should try to fudge the figures around the
general benefits of the central business district rail link,
and if the member has reasons why it should go ahead other
than its economic value to New Zealand, then I am sure that
those are going to be part of the debate. But the fact is
that under rigorous assessment, it is not the kind of
project that stands out ahead of all the others as a
valuable investment.

Julie Anne Genter:
Given that road users and freight will benefit most from the
city rail link according to all the numerous studies that
have been done on this project, because it is the best
option to reduce congestion, why will his Government not
make it a priority, instead of its election promises to the
provinces?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually, we
spend a fair bit of time in the provinces defending the fact
that a lot of the investment is in the big cities,
particularly the Tauranga-Hamilton-Auckland triangle. All
those matters, of course, will be taken into account as this
debate continues to evolve. I

know that in the mind of the
Auckland Council this is a project that it believes is vital
to the development of its city. The rigorous economic
assessment of it does not rank it highly, but the
discussions are continuing.

Julie Anne
Genter: Given that Auckland is expected to grow by
more than the entire population of Wellington by 2031, why
is his Government not prioritising smart infrastructure like
this city rail link, which will unlock the capacity of our
existing rail asset and take tens of thousands of cars off
the road at peak time, giving Aucklanders real choices and
freeing up the roads for freight and commercial
traffic?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, our
Government is aware of what the likely growth pressures in
Auckland are, which is why there has been very extensive
investment. The one under way now— the Waterview
tunnel—is, I am advised, the largest roading project in
the southern hemisphere at the moment, and that is all about
unlocking the potential of the completed motorway network,
because regardless of whether the central business district
rail tunnel goes ahead, the overwhelming majority of
commuter trips in Auckland will continue to be in either
cars or buses, and they will continue to need motorways. So
these are not mutually exclusive ways of approaching
investment in Auckland’s infrastructure. The Government
has done metro rail, it is proceeding to complete the
motorway network, and it is in an ongoing discussion with
the council about the central business district rail
network.

Julie Anne Genter: For the
benefit of the Minister, I seek leave to table information
from traffic engineering guidelines that shows that the
capacity of a motorway lane is 2,000 people per
hour—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the
information freely available to members?

Julie
Anne Genter: It does not seem to be available to
the National Government—

Mr SPEAKER: If
it is freely available to members it will not be
tabled.

Julie Anne Genter: I also seek
leave to table a letter I have here that is not available on
the internet, but it is a letter to the Secretary of State
for Transport in the United Kingdom from 25 transport
professors, and it does question the economic benefits
of—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought
to table this letter, a UK letter, signed by 25 professors,
etc. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It
can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the
House.

Economic Relationship, New Zealand -
China—Development

7. Dr JIAN YANG
(National) to the Minister for Economic
Development: How is the Government recognising the
importance of China for New Zealand’s trade, education and
tourism sectors?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for
Economic Development): Last week the Prime Minister
led the largest-ever New Zealand business delegation to
China. New Zealand’s economic prosperity is highly
dependent on our ability to form and maintain strong links
with other countries. This trip was particularly important
for encouraging and facilitating more growth in our trade,
tourism, and international education exports with China.
Total two-way goods trade with China now totals $14.6
billion, and greater investment developing between our two
economies means we are broadly on track to meet the target
that the Prime Minister and Premier Wen set in 2010 of
doubling the twoway trade to NZ$20 billion by the end of
2015. This target was reconfirmed between the Prime Minister
and President Xi Jinping during the successful China visit
last week.

Dr Jian Yang: What progress
was made on furthering New Zealand - China education
partnerships during the trip to China?

Hon STEVEN
JOYCE: Around 24,000 Chinese students come to New
Zealand schools and tertiary institutions every year, making
China our largest source of international students. While in
Beijing last week I signed a strategic education partnership
with China’s education Minister, which will build on the
existing positive relationship between the two countries
through supporting more

educational institutional
partnerships. As part of that partnership I witnessed the
vocational training programme arrangement between Wintec and
Qingdao Technical College and Tianjin Light Industry
Vocational and Technical College. I also witnessed the
Waikato University and Sun Yat- Sen University memorandum of
understanding, the New Zealand Little Schools and Wuxi local
government memorandum of understanding, the launch of a
Gibson Group documentary on Chinese student experiences in
New Zealand, and I had the pleasure of launching the first
Chinese language version of the New Zealand children’s
classic Hairy Maclary from Donaldson’s Dairy.

Dr
Jian Yang: What announcements were made during the
trip to China to make it easier for Chinese tourists and
business people to visit New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN
JOYCE: China is now New Zealand’s second-largest
source of visitors, and we are committed to ensuring they
enjoy a top-quality tourism experience. The number of
Chinese tourists to New Zealand is growing rapidly—for the
first time exceeding 200,000, in the year to February 2013.
That is up nearly 40 percent, year on year. A new,
bilingual, Chinese section of the Immigration Service
website is making it easier for visitors to lodge visa
applications. While in China last week the Prime Minister
announced that to make it easier for Chinese tourists to
visit New Zealand, from 1 May this year the Government will
extend multiple-entry visitor visas that are routinely
granted to independent Chinese travellers to 24 months. He
also announced a new 3-year multiple-entry business visa,
which will lower the cost of travel for frequent business
travellers and make it easier for them to move between the
two countries.

Dr Jian Yang: What else is
the Government doing to encourage growth in international
tourism?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Today the
Prime Minister announced that this year’s Budget will see
significant investment in areas that encourage international
growth. As part of this package, the Government will invest
an additional $158 million over 4 years in tourism marketing
and promotion. Achieving growth in tourism earnings requires
targeted new investment to position New Zealand as a
high-value destination in markets that have real potential
for growth, like China. The Prime Minister will release
exact details of the new investment later in the week.
People to people links, whether they be as a result of
tourism, education, cultural exchanges, or doing business,
are crucial for building understanding and lifting economic
cooperation between countries to create more jobs and growth
in this country.

Solid Energy—Financial
Position

8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour)
to the Minister for State Owned
Enterprises: What responsibility, if any, does he
take for Solid Energy’s precarious financial
position?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned
Enterprises): Yes, as answered in the House on 28
February, I am the Minister responsible for exercising the
powers of the shareholding Minister under the State-Owned
Enterprises Act. The Act also lays out that the
responsibility for the operational and financial performance
of all State-owned enterprises, including Solid Energy, lies
primarily with the boards of those companies, although
shareholders and the Government are ultimately held
accountable by the House and the public. I am not
responsible for the significant commercial risks faced by
Government-owned businesses, nor, in the case of Solid
Energy, a 40 percent drop in world coal
prices.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did he
not appoint a Crown observer to the board of Solid Energy,
given that Treasury advised him to do so in a briefing on 31
October, which said: “the presence of the Crown observer
has an important signalling effect, continually reminding
the company that its focus should be on moving to a
sustainable position, and minimising risks to the
Crown.”?

Hon TONY RYALL: Because at
that time the Government had appointed a new chair, and we
were also about to have new board members appointed to Solid
Energy.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he
stand by his statement to One News last night that “all
state owned enterprises need to be able to publicly justify
their spending”; if so, was the following

spending
justified: $1.8 million on overseas travel, $1 million on
nine communications staff, $500,000 on public relations and
advertising, and $200,000 employing private investigators
for security, when Solid Energy already had a security firm
to secure its sites?

Hon TONY RYALL: I do
believe that State-owned enterprises’ spending should be
publicly justifiable, just as Solid Energy had to justify
why it was spending taxpayers’ money on paying security
people to spy on groups when Labour was the
Government.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has he
questioned Solid Energy’s expenditure of $48,000 employing
lobbyists Saunders Unsworth to advise on “select committee
protocol” for a 1-hour appearance before the Commerce
Committee; if not, does he consider it a good use of
taxpayers’ money, when the company executives could not
even adhere to the simple committee protocol of answering
basic questions?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would
have to say that spending $48,000, if it were solely for the
purpose of appearing before the select committee, is an
awful lot of money, but what I think it does demonstrate is
that there is, for that member opposite, hope after
politics.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. My question began with “Has he
questioned Solid Energy’s expenditure …”. “Has he
questioned it?” was the question.

Mr
SPEAKER: OK, and if the member would like to ask
that question again, I will listen carefully to the
answer.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Thank you.
There might be hope for the Minister as well.

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! The member will simply ask his
question again.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has
he questioned Solid Energy’s expenditure of $48,000
employing lobbyists Saunders Unsworth to advise on “select
committee protocol” for a 1-hour appearance before the
Commerce Committee; if not, does he consider it a good use
of taxpayers’ money, when the company executives could not
even adhere to the simple committee protocol of answering
basic questions?

Hon TONY RYALL:
Yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did the
Minister take no action to rein in the extravagant
expenditure of Solid Energy as the company’s financial
position was rapidly deteriorating, given that he requested,
and was receiving, month-to-month monitoring reports on the
company, and if he believes he was right in taking no
action, could he please advise the House why he bothers
taking his ministerial salary and what exactly his role is
as the guardian of the taxpayers’ purse in respect of
State-owned enterprises?

Mr SPEAKER:
There were a number of questions there; the Minister can
answer any.

Hon TONY RYALL: Ministers
took very significant action as a result of the declining
position for Solid Energy, including putting the company on
intensive monitoring. The chair has changed and the board
has changed. What has not changed is the fact that this
company had to deal with a collapse of 40 percent in the
world coal price. Our Government did take action. It is a
shame that that Government did not take action when it was
allowing that company to spy on New
Zealanders—

9.
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to
the Minister of Housing: How will the $320
million settlement of Housing New Zealand’s insurance
claim for earthquake damaged properties help achieve the
Government’s priority of rebuilding
Christchurch?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of
Housing): The settlement is hugely helpful in that
it enables the corporation to fast track repairs and
replacements. Currently, each house has to be individually
assessed and checked off with the insurer. It also restricts
the ability to write off some of those seriously damaged
homes and replace them. This settlement gives the Government
the flexibility to rebuild for the future with the greater
diversity of house sizes and to move away from

heavily
concentrated State housing estates. The greatest benefit of
this settlement is that it allows the repair programme to be
completed in 3 years rather than in 5.

Nicky
Wagner: What is the Minister’s response to the
Opposition’s criticism that it is unfair for Housing New
Zealand Corporation to have settled its claim ahead of some
private homeowners’ claims in Christchurch?

Hon
Dr NICK SMITH: The Government wants all earthquake
insurance claims resolved for State agencies and for private
building owners, and we want that done as quickly as
possible, but it would be a nonsense for Housing New Zealand
Corporation to sit back and to say that it is not going to
settle its claims until every other insurance claim is
resolved. The losers from that would be Christchurch’s
most vulnerable families who depend on the corporation for
their accommodation.

Nicky Wagner: Has
the Minister seen the Opposition’s claims that this
insurance settlement sets a double standard and that in the
red zone Housing New Zealand Corporation has got a better
deal than that of ordinary homeowners?

Hon Dr NICK
SMITH: Well, that claim is quite wrong. For private
homeowners, the Government has offered at the full 2007
valuation for homes and land that were insured and at half
that for those that were uninsured. This is over and above
the Earthquake Commission’s requirements by law, and the
Government is, in fact, putting $1 billion on the table to
assist with that. Housing New Zealand Corporation is not
receiving any compensation for the 400 properties within the
red zone for the loss of land value.

Government
Communications Security Bureau—Process for Appointment of
Director

10. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy
Leader—Labour) to the Prime
Minister: What role, if any, did he play in
recommending the appointment of Ian Fletcher as Director of
the Government Communications Security Bureau?

Rt
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): As I have publicly
stated before, I agreed with the State Services
Commissioner’s advice that a potential short list of
people identified by a recruitment consultant for the job
should not be considered by an interview panel. I agreed
with Iain Rennie to look elsewhere to fill the position. I
rang Ian Fletcher and said that if he was interested in the
position, he would need to go through a process and should
call Maarten Wevers in the first instance. The interview
panel was unanimous that Mr Fletcher was suitable for the
position, and Mr Rennie then recommended his appointment to
me. I took his appointment to Cabinet and it was agreed. I
then recommended the appointment of Mr Fletcher to the
Governor-General.

Grant Robertson: Why
did the Prime Minister not give that information in his
correction that he gave before the start of question time
today?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it was
not necessary.

Grant Robertson: Why did
he not tell New Zealanders the truth about his role in the
appointment process when he was asked direct questions about
it in this House and by the media?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: As I have said on numerous occasions, when the
member asked me, it was a supplementary question to question
No. 12., I was not expecting that particular question, and
frankly the phone call was so unmemorable I had not
remembered it. But I was the not the person who filled in my
tax return—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That
adds nothing to the quality of the answer.

Grant
Robertson: Why did he say 2 days after the question
in the House “I didn’t undertake the recruitment, that
was fully done by the State Services Commission …”, when
he was the person who rejected the short list, he was the
person who suggested Ian Fletcher, and he was the person who
made a phone call to Ian Fletcher—2 days after the
question was asked in the House?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Because in the context of the question I was
asked I believed that to be correct. The recruitment was
undertaken by the State Services Commissioner, and that is
actually accurate in terms of the way it was done.

Louise Upston: Can the Prime Minister tell
the House what reports he has seen of the Auditor-
General’s view about the appointment of Ian
Fletcher?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Funnily
enough, I can. I have seen the Auditor-General say that he
does not intend to carry out an inquiry into the appointment
of Ian Fletcher. Let me quote from the Auditor-General:
“The Prime Minister has responsibility for this
appointment. Unlike for chief executives of other government
departments, the relevant legislation”—

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have a
point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt
Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. With the greatest respect to the House and to the
Auditor-General, if she has had a gender change, we should
know about it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The
Prime Minister has every right to answer the question that
was put by Louise Upston, if he wishes to
continue.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To continue:
“The Prime Minister has responsibility for this
appointment. Unlike for chief executives of government
departments, the relevant legislation does not prescribe any
particular process that has to be followed before making
that appointment. … The State Services Commission provided
support to the Prime Minister in this appointment process.
… It is relatively common for recruitment processes to
adapt as they progress …”. [Interruption] The members
might not like it, but the Auditor-General says “No
problems.”, the State Services Commissioner says “No
problems.”, and, in fact, there is nothing wrong with the
appointment. Ian Fletcher was the best candidate for the
job.

Grant Robertson: How did he come to
have Ian Fletcher’s phone number when he called him in
July 2011?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No
clue.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! It was a
reasonable question, which I do not think should be
difficult for the Prime Minister to answer. How did he come
to have the phone number?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: I genuinely have no clue. I do not know how I
got the number.

Grant Robertson: In light
of his last answer that he is clueless about—

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! No, that will only lead to
disorder. Would the member just ask his supplementary
question. [Interruption] Order! If the member wants a
supplementary question, he will ask it.

Dr Russel
Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is
a perfectly reasonable question. The Prime Minister said he
had no clue—

Mr SPEAKER: As to how he
got a phone number.

Dr Russel Norman: Mr
Robertson said he was clueless. That is the same
thing.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! That is not
a helpful comment from Dr Russel Norman. Would the member
please ask his supplementary question.

Grant
Robertson: Can the Prime Minister understand why
New Zealanders are struggling to believe anything that he
has got to say on this matter when he cannot even answer the
question of how he came to have Ian Fletcher’s phone
number?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, because I
did not, at that point, have Ian Fletcher’s mobile phone
number. To the best of my knowledge, I actually rang the
directory service to get the Queensland number. I do not
actually have his number.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Parliamentary question time will become a total waste of
time if the Prime Minister can make it up as he goes along.
He told the House that he happened to have Ian Fletcher’s
number. Now he explains, weeks later, that he went and found
it somewhere else; he did not have the number. What is the
truth here? That is the purpose of question
time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is pretty
clear to me that on reflection he had time to remember how
he now recalls that he got the number. I do not think that
is unreasonable at all. [Interruption] Order! The most
important thing—

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: It is not important whether it is strictly
clear to you. What is important is that it is not clear to
the rest of the country or anybody else in the House how you
derived that understanding.

Mr SPEAKER:
Well, the Prime Minister has now given an answer that has
made it a lot clearer.

Grant Robertson:
In light of the Prime Minister’s last answer, can he tell
the House how he managed to get a mobile phone number from a
directory service when you cannot get mobile phone numbers
from directory services?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY:
Because when I rang the Queensland service, it was
redirected to that mobile.

Welfare
Fraud—Information Sharing Between Government
Agencies

11. MIKE SABIN
(National—Northland) to the Associate
Minister for Social Development: What early results
can he report from the Government’s efforts to deal with
welfare fraud?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate
Minister for Social Development): Over the past
week we have seen our new welfare fraud measures deliver
their first results. Last Thursday the first inter-agency
welfare fraud investigation resulted in the arrest of two
people on charges related to a $375,000 welfare scam.
[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!
[Interruption] Order! I am now having trouble hearing the
answer because of the noise level coming from the Opposition
side of the House. Would the Minister please start his
answer again.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Over
the past week we have seen our new welfare fraud measures
deliver their first results. Last Thursday the first
inter-agency welfare fraud investigation resulted in the
arrest of two people on charges relating to a $375,000
welfare scam. This scam saw hundreds of beneficiaries making
false claims for emergency dental and other assistance. The
case was investigated by Ministry of Social Development
fraud investigators working with the Police and the Inland
Revenue Department, and it shows how agencies sharing their
resources and information can help catch fraud that affects
not just one but several Government agencies.

Mike
Sabin: What success can he report from enhanced
information sharing between the Ministry of Social
Development and the Inland Revenue Department?

Hon
CHESTER BORROWS: Improved information sharing is
already paying big dividends, with 525 people who were
working and no longer entitled to a benefit being identified
and their benefit being cancelled. Although I am glad these
people have found work, they have no right to abuse the
welfare system and take money they are no longer entitled
to. With the benefits already stopped costing $5.6 million a
year, these results illustrate the potential for information
sharing to prevent welfare fraud.

Mike
Sabin: What can we expect to see next from his
welfare fraud reforms?

Hon CHESTER
BORROWS: Later this year the House will consider
the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery)
Amendment Bill, which will change the law to hold to account
partners involved in relationship fraud. In the second half
of the year our low-trust client measures will come into
force, placing stringent new checks on beneficiaries who
have previously tried to rip off the system, and we will
continue to see offenders caught as a result of our
interagency work and information sharing. For a tiny
minority who think it is OK to steal from the welfare
system, the time is up. If they do not come and put things
right with us, we will be coming to them.

Oil,
Gas, and Mineral Prospecting—Crown Minerals Amendment
Bill

12. GARETH HUGHES (Green)
to the Minister of Energy and
Resources: Will he recommend returning the Crown
Minerals Amendment Bill to the select committee so that the
public can have a say on the so-called “Anadarko
Amendment”; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES
(Minister of Energy and Resources): As I told the
member last week in question time, no. Supplementary Order
Paper 205 was robustly debated in the House last week and
voted on, and Green members, for example, took many calls in
the Committee of the whole House and made their views very
well known.

Gareth Hughes: Why, then, is
the Minister rushing ahead to pass the so-called “Anadarko
amendment” into law, given that a recent poll out today
shows that 79 percent of New Zealanders and over 60 percent
of National Party voters want the amendment to be withdrawn
completely or at least sent back to a select committee
hearing?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I note
that it was a Greenpeace poll, and what is very clear is
that if you ask a certain question, mischaracterising the
law, you get a certain answer. Actually, if it characterised
the law correctly, I am sure it would find that the law is
very popular among many New Zealanders.

Gareth
Hughes: Are the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Peter
Williams QC, New Zealander of the Year Anne Salmond, and
over 36,000 New Zealanders who have signed a petition in the
last few days all unreasonable to be asking for public
consultation on this amendment?

Hon SIMON
BRIDGES: They are clearly wrong in their legal
interpretation.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not feel the question was
addressed. The question was whether these New Zealanders
are—

Mr SPEAKER: I think the question
was very adequately addressed.

Brendan
Horan: Given that a Horizon Research poll in the
last week has found that 79 percent of New Zealanders oppose
criminalising protest at sea, is he not ashamed that he is
muzzling the people of Tauranga, who would make submissions
if the select committee process went ahead?

Hon
SIMON BRIDGES: As I have made very clear, this
HorizonPoll was commissioned by Greenpeace. It asked a
certain question; it got a certain answer.

Gareth
Hughes: Can he guarantee that we will not see a
Gulf of Mexico - sized oil spill in New Zealand; if not, is
it not deep-sea oil drilling rather than peaceful protest
the dangerous and reckless activity he should be
stopping?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: If the
member was right, perhaps he could have focused on that in
some of his speeches instead of the sideshows the Green
Party members did focus on. The reality is we have very
robust processes—

Hon Member: Just
answer the question.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES:
Well, I am answering his question. If he would sit
down—

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. I think that was entirely unfair of the
Minister to start off with an attack. He did not attempt to
address the question whatsoever.

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is moving to it. The
question was whether he can guarantee, etc. The Minister
should answer the question.

Hon SIMON
BRIDGES: There are very robust processes and
regulations coming through this bill, in fact, that make me
very confident that we will not see that sort of
disaster.

Question No. 10 to
Minister

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime
Minister): I seek leave to ensure that there is
absolutely correct information and to make sure I give an
answer to Mr Robertson.

Mr SPEAKER: What
is the point of order?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime
Minister): I am seeking leave to make sure I give
you the fullness of the answer.

Mr
SPEAKER: Are you seeking leave to correct an
answer? [Interruption] I am not sure what the point of order
is.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I
am seeking leave to complete the answer, for
fullness.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave would need to
be required. Leave is so denied. [Interruption] Order! I
have a point of order and it will be heard in silence.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Rt Hon
WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. If you check the Hansard I believe
that what you ruled earlier today on question No. 3 is
incorrect. We asked a primary question and four
supplementary questions, one of which was a repeat of the
right to ask one of those supplementary questions again. I
think you have got your count wrong.

Mr
SPEAKER: I will certainly check the Hansard and
have a look at that for the right honourable member.
Supplementary questions are, of course, always at the
discretion of the Speaker. If a mistake has been made, I
will certainly make sure we find a way to correct
it.

Question No. 10 to
Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD
(Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. I want to make it clear that if the Prime Minister
seeks leave to make a personal explanation to correct an
answer that was incorrect, the Labour Party will not oppose
it.

Mr SPEAKER: That is the only way
forward. If the Prime Minister feels that his answer was
incorrect because it was incomplete, he has every ability to
seek leave to make a personal
explanation.

Question No. 10 to Minister—Amended
Answer

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime
Minister): I seek leave to correct
that.

Mr SPEAKER: The member so seeks
leave. Is there any objection? There is none.

Rt
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I have now checked
with my office. We cannot be 100 percent sure whether I rang
the directory service or my assistant rang the directory
service—either is possible. Either the call was redirected
or the number was given. We are fairly sure that it was
redirected. That is the fullness of the answer.

ALSO:

WorkSafe NZ has laid one charge against the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in relation to the shooting at the MSD Ashburton office on 1 September 2014 in which two Work and Income staff were killed and another was injured. More>>

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters has announced his intention to stand in the Northland by-election, citing his own links to the electorate and ongoing neglect of the region by central government. More>>

The Government has appointed 12 New Zealanders as members of the Flag Consideration Panel which will engage with the public about a possible new New Zealand flag, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English says. More>>

ALSO:

ALSO:

The first I knew of my mother’s charges was when I was called by a reporter yesterday. I spoke to Andrew and we agreed there is a conflict of interest at the present time which means I will temporarily stand aside from the Social Development portfolio. It’s the right thing to do… . More>>